OBJECTIVE: Noninvasive cardiac electrophysiological (EP) imaging techniques rely on anatomically-detailed heart-torso models derived from high-quality tomographic images of individual subjects. However, anatomical modeling involves variations that lead to unresolved uncertainties in the outcome of EP imaging, bringing questions to the robustness of these methods in clinical practice. In this study, we design a systematic statistical approach to assess the sensitivity of EP imaging methods to the variations in personalized anatomical modeling. METHODS: We first quantify the variations in personalized anatomical models by a novel application of statistical shape modeling. Given the statistical distribution of the variation in personalized anatomical models, we then employ unscented transform to determine the sensitivity of EP imaging outputs to the variation in input personalized anatomical modeling. RESULTS: We test the feasibility of our proposed approach using two of the existing EP imaging methods: epicardial-based electrocardiographic imaging and transmural electrophysiological imaging. Both phantom and real-data experiments show that variations in personalized anatomical models have negligible impact on the outcome of EP imaging. CONCLUSION: This study verifies the robustness of EP imaging methods to the errors in personalized anatomical modeling and suggests the possibility to simplify the process of anatomical modeling in future clinical practice. SIGNIFICANCE: This study proposes a systematic statistical approach to quantify anatomical modeling variations and assess their impact on EP imaging, which can be extended to find a balance between the quality of personalized anatomical models and the accuracy of EP imaging that may improve the clinical feasibility of EP imaging.
OBJECTIVE: Noninvasive cardiac electrophysiological (EP) imaging techniques rely on anatomically-detailed heart-torso models derived from high-quality tomographic images of individual subjects. However, anatomical modeling involves variations that lead to unresolved uncertainties in the outcome of EP imaging, bringing questions to the robustness of these methods in clinical practice. In this study, we design a systematic statistical approach to assess the sensitivity of EP imaging methods to the variations in personalized anatomical modeling. METHODS: We first quantify the variations in personalized anatomical models by a novel application of statistical shape modeling. Given the statistical distribution of the variation in personalized anatomical models, we then employ unscented transform to determine the sensitivity of EP imaging outputs to the variation in input personalized anatomical modeling. RESULTS: We test the feasibility of our proposed approach using two of the existing EP imaging methods: epicardial-based electrocardiographic imaging and transmural electrophysiological imaging. Both phantom and real-data experiments show that variations in personalized anatomical models have negligible impact on the outcome of EP imaging. CONCLUSION: This study verifies the robustness of EP imaging methods to the errors in personalized anatomical modeling and suggests the possibility to simplify the process of anatomical modeling in future clinical practice. SIGNIFICANCE: This study proposes a systematic statistical approach to quantify anatomical modeling variations and assess their impact on EP imaging, which can be extended to find a balance between the quality of personalized anatomical models and the accuracy of EP imaging that may improve the clinical feasibility of EP imaging.
Authors: Pablo Lamata; Steven Niederer; David Barber; David Norsletten; Jack Lee; Rod Hose; Nic Smith Journal: Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv Date: 2010
Authors: Phillip S Cuculich; Yong Wang; Bruce D Lindsay; Mitchell N Faddis; Richard B Schuessler; Ralph J Damiano; Li Li; Yoram Rudy Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-09-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Thomas Berger; Bernhard Pfeifer; Friedrich F Hanser; Florian Hintringer; Gerald Fischer; Michael Netzer; Thomas Trieb; Markus Stuehlinger; Wolfgang Dichtl; Christian Baumgartner; Otmar Pachinger; Michael Seger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-01-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jake A Bergquist; Jaume Coll-Font; Brian Zenger; Lindsay C Rupp; Wilson W Good; Dana H Brooks; Rob S MacLeod Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 4.589